Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops ›› 2020, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (6): 1100-1107.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.06.005
• Crop Culture and Nutrition, Genetic BreedingCrop Culture and Nutrition, Genetic Breeding • Previous Articles Next Articles
PENG Chao1,AI Wensheng1,*(),XIE Yunfan2,SHI Yanfei2,ZHONG Yi2,LI Nan2
Received:
2019-09-20
Revised:
2019-10-19
Online:
2020-06-25
Published:
2020-07-30
Contact:
AI Wensheng
CLC Number:
PENG Chao,AI Wensheng,XIE Yunfan,SHI Yanfei,ZHONG Yi,LI Nan. Effect of Bamboo Sawdust Substrate and Strain Planting Density to Yield and Nutritional Quality of Dictyophora echinovolvata[J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(6): 1100-1107.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.rdzwxb.com/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2020.06.005
水平 Levels | A 种植密度 Planting density/(g·m-2) | B 培养基质 Cultivating substrate/ (kg·m-2) |
---|---|---|
1 | 400 | 8 |
2 | 600 | 12 |
3 | 800 | 16 |
Tab. 1 Factor level table of orthogonal design
水平 Levels | A 种植密度 Planting density/(g·m-2) | B 培养基质 Cultivating substrate/ (kg·m-2) |
---|---|---|
1 | 400 | 8 |
2 | 600 | 12 |
3 | 800 | 16 |
序号 Orders | 1-A | 2-B | 3(A×B) | 4 | 处理组合 Treatment combination | 处理组合内容 Content of treatment combination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 (400) | 1 (8.0) | 1 | 1 | A1B1 | 菌种400 g+竹基质8.0 kg |
2 | 1 (400) | 2 (12.0) | 2 | 2 | A1B2 | 菌种400 g+竹基质12.0 kg |
3 | 1 (400) | 3 (16.0) | 3 | 3 | A1B3 | 菌种400 g+竹基质16.0 kg |
4 | 2 (600) | 1 (8.0) | 2 | 3 | A2B1 | 菌种600 g+竹基质8.0 kg |
5 | 2 (600) | 2 (12.0) | 3 | 1 | A2B2 | 菌种600 g+竹基质12.0 kg |
6 | 2 (600) | 3 (16.0) | 1 | 2 | A2B3 | 菌种600 g+竹基质16.0 kg |
7 | 3 (800) | 1 (8.0) | 3 | 2 | A3B1 | 菌种800 g+竹基质8.0 kg |
8 | 3 (800) | 2 (12.0) | 1 | 3 | A3B2 | 菌种800 g+竹基质12.0 kg |
9 | 3 (800) | 3 (16.0) | 2 | 1 | A3B3 | 菌种800 g+竹基质16.0 kg |
Tab. 2 Treatment combinations of orthogonal design
序号 Orders | 1-A | 2-B | 3(A×B) | 4 | 处理组合 Treatment combination | 处理组合内容 Content of treatment combination |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1 (400) | 1 (8.0) | 1 | 1 | A1B1 | 菌种400 g+竹基质8.0 kg |
2 | 1 (400) | 2 (12.0) | 2 | 2 | A1B2 | 菌种400 g+竹基质12.0 kg |
3 | 1 (400) | 3 (16.0) | 3 | 3 | A1B3 | 菌种400 g+竹基质16.0 kg |
4 | 2 (600) | 1 (8.0) | 2 | 3 | A2B1 | 菌种600 g+竹基质8.0 kg |
5 | 2 (600) | 2 (12.0) | 3 | 1 | A2B2 | 菌种600 g+竹基质12.0 kg |
6 | 2 (600) | 3 (16.0) | 1 | 2 | A2B3 | 菌种600 g+竹基质16.0 kg |
7 | 3 (800) | 1 (8.0) | 3 | 2 | A3B1 | 菌种800 g+竹基质8.0 kg |
8 | 3 (800) | 2 (12.0) | 1 | 3 | A3B2 | 菌种800 g+竹基质12.0 kg |
9 | 3 (800) | 3 (16.0) | 2 | 1 | A3B3 | 菌种800 g+竹基质16.0 kg |
指标 Index | 变异来源 Source of variation | III 型平方和 Sum square of III type | 自由度 df | 均方 Mean square | F值 F value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量 | 组间 | 12026.35 | 2 | 6013.17 | 239.245 | 0.000** |
组内 | 1960.45 | 78 | 25.13 | |||
总数 | 13986.80 | 80 | ||||
粗蛋白 | 组间 | 137.57 | 8 | 17.19 | 6.697 | 0.000** |
组内 | 46.22 | 18 | 2.56 | |||
总数 | 183.79 | 26 | ||||
粗纤维 | 组间 | 153.51 | 8 | 19.19 | 2.766 | 0.035* |
组内 | 124.88 | 18 | 6.94 | |||
总数 | 278.39 | 26 | ||||
总糖 | 组间 | 256.53 | 8 | 32.07 | 4.694 | 0.003** |
组内 | 122.96 | 18 | 6.83 | |||
总数 | 379.49 | 26 |
Tab. 3 ANOVA analysis of treatment combinations
指标 Index | 变异来源 Source of variation | III 型平方和 Sum square of III type | 自由度 df | 均方 Mean square | F值 F value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
产量 | 组间 | 12026.35 | 2 | 6013.17 | 239.245 | 0.000** |
组内 | 1960.45 | 78 | 25.13 | |||
总数 | 13986.80 | 80 | ||||
粗蛋白 | 组间 | 137.57 | 8 | 17.19 | 6.697 | 0.000** |
组内 | 46.22 | 18 | 2.56 | |||
总数 | 183.79 | 26 | ||||
粗纤维 | 组间 | 153.51 | 8 | 19.19 | 2.766 | 0.035* |
组内 | 124.88 | 18 | 6.94 | |||
总数 | 278.39 | 26 | ||||
总糖 | 组间 | 256.53 | 8 | 32.07 | 4.694 | 0.003** |
组内 | 122.96 | 18 | 6.83 | |||
总数 | 379.49 | 26 |
Fig. 1 Comparison of mean yield among treatments Different capital letters denoted extremely significant difference among treatments (P<0.01), and different lowercases denoted significant difference among treatments (P<0.05) within 95% confidence interval.
变异来源 Source of variation | 因变量 Dependent variable | III 型平方和 Sum square of III type | 自由度 df | 均方 Mean square | F值 F value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
种植密度(A) | 产量 | 15.81 | 2 | 7.90 | 22.433 | 0.000** |
粗蛋白 | 11.71 | 2 | 5.85 | 1.046 | 0.370 | |
粗纤维 | 47.33 | 2 | 23.66 | 2.845 | 0.082 | |
总糖 | 15.73 | 2 | 7.86 | 0.596 | 0.561 | |
培养基质(B) | 产量 | 3.00 | 2 | 1.50 | 4.263 | 0.029* |
粗蛋白 | 15.21 | 2 | 7.60 | 1.359 | 0.280 | |
粗纤维 | 18.81 | 2 | 9.40 | 1.130 | 0.343 | |
总糖 | 45.61 | 2 | 22.80 | 1.728 | 0.203 | |
种植密度×培养基质 (A×B) | 产量 | 0.72 | 2 | 0.36 | 1.025 | 0.377 |
粗蛋白 | 45.01 | 2 | 22.50 | 4.023 | 0.034* | |
粗纤维 | 45.89 | 2 | 22.94 | 2.758 | 0.088 | |
总糖 | 54.19 | 2 | 27.09 | 2.053 | 0.155 | |
误差 | 产量 | 201.95 | 18 | 11.22 | ||
粗蛋白 | 46.22 | 18 | 2.57 | |||
粗纤维 | 124.88 | 18 | 6.94 | |||
总糖 | 122.96 | 18 | 6.83 | |||
校正总计 | 产量 | 2657.95 | 26 | |||
粗蛋白 | 183.79 | 26 | ||||
粗纤维 | 278.39 | 26 | ||||
总糖 | 379.49 | 26 |
Tab. 4 Multi-factor analysis of each factor levels
变异来源 Source of variation | 因变量 Dependent variable | III 型平方和 Sum square of III type | 自由度 df | 均方 Mean square | F值 F value | P值 P value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
种植密度(A) | 产量 | 15.81 | 2 | 7.90 | 22.433 | 0.000** |
粗蛋白 | 11.71 | 2 | 5.85 | 1.046 | 0.370 | |
粗纤维 | 47.33 | 2 | 23.66 | 2.845 | 0.082 | |
总糖 | 15.73 | 2 | 7.86 | 0.596 | 0.561 | |
培养基质(B) | 产量 | 3.00 | 2 | 1.50 | 4.263 | 0.029* |
粗蛋白 | 15.21 | 2 | 7.60 | 1.359 | 0.280 | |
粗纤维 | 18.81 | 2 | 9.40 | 1.130 | 0.343 | |
总糖 | 45.61 | 2 | 22.80 | 1.728 | 0.203 | |
种植密度×培养基质 (A×B) | 产量 | 0.72 | 2 | 0.36 | 1.025 | 0.377 |
粗蛋白 | 45.01 | 2 | 22.50 | 4.023 | 0.034* | |
粗纤维 | 45.89 | 2 | 22.94 | 2.758 | 0.088 | |
总糖 | 54.19 | 2 | 27.09 | 2.053 | 0.155 | |
误差 | 产量 | 201.95 | 18 | 11.22 | ||
粗蛋白 | 46.22 | 18 | 2.57 | |||
粗纤维 | 124.88 | 18 | 6.94 | |||
总糖 | 122.96 | 18 | 6.83 | |||
校正总计 | 产量 | 2657.95 | 26 | |||
粗蛋白 | 183.79 | 26 | ||||
粗纤维 | 278.39 | 26 | ||||
总糖 | 379.49 | 26 |
指标 Indexes | 极差 Range | 因素主次 Prioritizing factors | 优水平 Optimal level | 最佳理论组合 Optimal theory combination |
---|---|---|---|---|
产量 | RA =1.83; RB=0.8 | A>B | A2B3 | A2B3 |
粗蛋白 | RA=19.4; RB=1.8 | A>B | A2B1 | |
粗纤维 | RA=3.00; RB=2.0 | A>B | A3B1 | |
总糖 | RA=1.83; RB=3.2 | B>A | A1B3 |
Tab. 5 Prioritizing order and optimal level of impact factors of D. echinovolvata
指标 Indexes | 极差 Range | 因素主次 Prioritizing factors | 优水平 Optimal level | 最佳理论组合 Optimal theory combination |
---|---|---|---|---|
产量 | RA =1.83; RB=0.8 | A>B | A2B3 | A2B3 |
粗蛋白 | RA=19.4; RB=1.8 | A>B | A2B1 | |
粗纤维 | RA=3.00; RB=2.0 | A>B | A3B1 | |
总糖 | RA=1.83; RB=3.2 | B>A | A1B3 |
处理组合 Treatment combination | 菌种成本 Culture medium cost/yuan | 基质成本 Curing substrate/yuan | 产量 Yield/kg | 产值 Output value/yuan | 收益 Income/yuan | 支收比 Output/cost ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2.24 | 3.20 | 1.3 | 21.3 | 15.9 | 1:3.92 |
2 | 2.24 | 4.80 | 2.2 | 34.9 | 27.8 | 1:4.95 |
3 | 2.24 | 6.40 | 3.3 | 52.8 | 44.1 | 1:6.11 |
4 | 3.36 | 3.20 | 3.8 | 60.4 | 53.9 | 1:9.21 |
5 | 3.36 | 4.80 | 3.4 | 53.7 | 45.5 | 1:6.58 |
6 | 3.36 | 6.40 | 4.0 | 64.6 | 54.9 | 1:6.62 |
7 | 4.48 | 3.20 | 2.6 | 41.4 | 33.7 | 1:5.39 |
8 | 4.48 | 4.80 | 2.9 | 46.3 | 37.0 | 1:4.99 |
9 | 4.48 | 6.40 | 2.6 | 41.0 | 30.1 | 1:3.77 |
Tab. 6 Comparison of planting cost and output value for D. echinovolvata
处理组合 Treatment combination | 菌种成本 Culture medium cost/yuan | 基质成本 Curing substrate/yuan | 产量 Yield/kg | 产值 Output value/yuan | 收益 Income/yuan | 支收比 Output/cost ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2.24 | 3.20 | 1.3 | 21.3 | 15.9 | 1:3.92 |
2 | 2.24 | 4.80 | 2.2 | 34.9 | 27.8 | 1:4.95 |
3 | 2.24 | 6.40 | 3.3 | 52.8 | 44.1 | 1:6.11 |
4 | 3.36 | 3.20 | 3.8 | 60.4 | 53.9 | 1:9.21 |
5 | 3.36 | 4.80 | 3.4 | 53.7 | 45.5 | 1:6.58 |
6 | 3.36 | 6.40 | 4.0 | 64.6 | 54.9 | 1:6.62 |
7 | 4.48 | 3.20 | 2.6 | 41.4 | 33.7 | 1:5.39 |
8 | 4.48 | 4.80 | 2.9 | 46.3 | 37.0 | 1:4.99 |
9 | 4.48 | 6.40 | 2.6 | 41.0 | 30.1 | 1:3.77 |
[1] | 周崇莲, 曾德容. 棘托竹荪的生物学特性[J]. 林业科学, 1997,33(5):471-474. |
[2] | 暴增海, 马桂珍. 我国的竹荪资源及其开发利用[J]. 自然资源, 1994(3):68-71. |
[3] | 才晓玲, 王东云, 何伟, 等. 竹荪生物学特性及栽培技术研究进展[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2015,43(7):65-66. |
[4] | 岳诚, 邱彦芬, 马静. 竹荪化学成分及药理作用研究进展[J]. 食药用菌, 2019,27(1):48-51. |
[5] | 刘恒贵, 费本华, 范少辉, 等. 从战略高度推进竹业发展的几点思考[J]. 世界竹藤通讯, 2017,15(5):52-55, 62. |
[6] | 李岚, 朱霖, 朱平. 中国竹资源及竹产业发展现状分析[J]. 南方农业, 2017,11(1):6-9. |
[7] | 蔡春菊, 范少辉, 刘广路, 等. 竹林复合经营研究和发展现状[J]. 世界竹藤通讯, 2018,16(5):47-52. |
[8] | 苏德伟, 罗海凌, 林辉, 等. 林地套种竹荪高产栽培技术研究[J]. 北方园艺, 2012(17):149-150. |
[9] | 佘青松. 毛竹林中栽培竹荪技术[J]. 安徽农学通报(下半月刊), 2011,17(14):223-245. |
[10] | 郭江艳, 史成伟, 翁行良, 等. 茅山丘陵地区毛竹——竹荪立体经营模式探究[J]. 绿色科技, 2017(17):102-103. |
[11] | 卢鹏, 谢锦忠, 童龙, 等. 麻竹林下竹荪仿野生种植关键技术研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2016,40(4):177-182. |
[12] | 兰根田, 叶旭燕, 金荣建, 等. 毛竹林套种竹荪复合经营技术[J]. 世界竹藤通讯, 2016,14(4):22-24. |
[13] | 陈伟龙, 吴应齐, 李伶俐, 等. 锥栗林下竹荪与黄精间作方式研究初报[J], 南方林业科学, 2018,46(2):21-23, 27. |
[14] | 黄坚雄, 袁淑娜, 潘剑, 等. 以橡胶木屑为主要基质栽培的大球盖菇与香菇、平菇的主要营养成分差异[J]. 热带作物学报, 2018,39(8):1625-1629. |
[15] | 陈维理. 竹荪退菌原因与处理方法[J]. 食用菌, 2007, ( 1):2. |
[16] | 周建林, 毛小伟. 培养料不同用量对竹荪生长发育及产量的影响[J]. 上海农业科技, 2012(4):88-89. |
[17] | 朱学忠 皖东南地区竹荪栽培技术[J]. 现代农业科技, 2014(7):118-120. |
[18] | 李建宗, 胡新文, 彭寅斌. 棘托竹荪生物学特性研究初报[J]. 长沙水电师院学报(自然科学版), 1992(1):75-81. |
[19] | 范慈惠, 李代芳, 朱州. 竹荪生长和基质的关系[J]. 云南植物研究, 1987(2):209-216. |
[20] | 王培丹 菌草菌糟栽培竹荪及其品质的研究[D]. 福州: 福建农林大学, 2015. |
[21] | 张平. 林下郁闭度对竹荪产量影响分析与效益评价[J]. 林业勘察设计, 2016,36(2):48-50, 55. |
[22] | 朱伯伦, 舒毓枝, 杨迎祥, 等. 竹荪气候生态条件及其在炎热地区的栽培技术[J]. 中国农业气象, 1993(5):18-20. |
[1] | LU Cheng,CHEN Xin,ZHOU Xincheng,XIA Zhiqiang,SUN Yufang,WANG Haiyan,ZOU Meiling,LI Kaimian,LI Zhaogui,XIAO Ziying,ZHOU Bin,HAN Quanhui,ZHANG Peng,WANG Wenquan. Breeding of a New Cassava Cultivar ‘South China No. 16’ [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(9): 1756-1761. |
[2] | LUO Qifeng,ZHANG Xinming,CHEN Lin,XU Pengju,PAN Song,HE Chunxi,CAO Xianwei. Yield and Economic Benefit of Potato in Winter under Different Release Periods of Controlled Slow Release Compound Fertilizers and Ratio of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(8): 1589-1595. |
[3] | LI Jiqin,YANG Shaohai,HUANG Zhenrui,LU Yusheng,GU Wenjie,LI Shuling. Application of Two Soil Conditioners in Alluvial Sandy Soil of Meizhou Tobacco-growing Area [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(8): 1596-1601. |
[4] | HUANG Zhenrui,ZHOU Wenling,AO Junhua,CHEN Diwen,HUANG Ying,JIANG Yong,LI Qiwei. Sugarcane Yield and Soil Potassium Balance in Potassium Application of Four Consecutive Years [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(7): 1347-1353. |
[5] | XU Xia,GOU Yonggang,LUO Shasha,WANG Yushu,YU Lingling,WANG Jianwu. Effect of Nitrogen Reduction on Yield Stability of Sugarcane-Soybean Intercropping System [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(7): 1354-1365. |
[6] | REN Chengcai,WU Chaobo,ZHU Mingjun,HAN Wensu,RUI Kai,LYU Chaojun,ZHANG Yan. Application Effect Evaluation of Solar Energy Self-Controlled Multifunctional Pest Trap Lamp on Areca catechu L. [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(7): 1408-1414. |
[7] | ZHAO Mingzhu,GUO Tieying,MA Guanrun,XIAO Ziwei,BAI Xuehui,ZHOU Hua,SU Linlin. Relationship Between Soil Factors, Quality and Yield Formation in Coffea arabica [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(6): 1065-1075. |
[8] | LIN Xiaobing,ZHOU Lijun,HUANG Shangshu,ZHONG Yijun,CHENG Yanhong,ZHANG Kun,SUN Yongming,WU Lin. Changes of Agronomic Traits, Yield and Soil Nutrient of Red Soil in Southern China under Different Nitrogen Application Rates [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(6): 1076-1083. |
[9] | HUANG Jichuan,PENG Zhiping,TU Yuting,WU Xuena,LIANG Zhixiong,YANG Linxiang,LIN Zhijun. Yield, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Nutrient Effects of Alginate Compound Fertilizer on Double-cropping Rice [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(5): 859-867. |
[10] | YANG Tian,ZHAO Qi,LI Xiaoqin,ZHANG Fengliang,MAO Changli,HU Yonghua,WU Yu. Variations Analysis of Latex Yield and Physiological Traits in Hevea brasiliensis Wickham Germplasm Resources [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(5): 893-900. |
[11] | TIAN Qinglan,LIU Jieyun,WU Yanyan,HUANG Weihua,HUANG Yongcai,MOU Haifei,WU Daidong,ZHANG Yingjun,HUANG Pingming. Comparison of Yield Formation and Quality of ‘Zhongjiao No. 9 ’ under Different Transplanting Dates [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2020, 41(4): 640-648. |
[12] | ZHENG Xiangzhou,GUO Baoling,WANG Yingnan,ZHANG Yushu,DING Hong. New Type Soil Conditioner Improves Soil Properties and Tobacco Yield and Quality [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019, 40(7): 1278-1283. |
[13] | LI Mao,ZI Xuejuan,DIAO Qiyu,HU Haichao,TANG Jun,ZHOU Hanlin. Organic Acids Improve the Fermentation Quality and Nutrient Value of Cassava Foliage [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019, 40(7): 1312-1316. |
[14] | ZHAN Jie,LI Zhenwu,DENG Sufang,YING Zhaoyang. Interplanting Chamaecrista rotundifolia Improves the Ecological Environment of Tea Garden and Promotes the Growth of Tea Trees [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019, 40(6): 1055-1061. |
[15] | WANG Yan,LI Zhenzhou,HUANG Kaifeng. Grouting Characteristics and Root Morphology and Filling Degree of Tartary Buckwheat Under Different Nitrogen Fertilizer Application [J]. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2019, 40(6): 1062-1067. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||